Golf club’s application for a new lease — Determination of rent, duration and other terms
His Honour Judge Carey Evans gave judgment at Great Yarmouth County Court on January 8 in Gorleston Golf Club, Ltd v Links Estate (Gorleston), Ltd, the hearing of which took place before him at Norwich on January 2.
Mr LA Blundell (instructed by Messrs Hatch & Hatch, of Norwich) appeared for the applicants, and Mr JP Widgery, QC, and Mr Alan Fletcher (instructed by Messrs Ruddock, Middleton & Killin, of Great Yarmouth) for the respondents.
Gorleston Golf Club, Ltd, applied under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, for the grant of a new lease, the premises consisting of the club house and the course, which compromised approximately 87 acres. The Club’s present lease, granted in 1938, was for 21 years, which would expire on April 30, 1959. The rent reserved was £300 per annum. A clause in the lease restricted the user of the property to that of a golf course.
The landlord had failed to serve a counter-notice under section 26 of the 1954 Act, and consequently the only question before the Court was the rent, duration of the lease and the other terms upon which a new lease should be granted. The applicants asked for a 14-year lease, to take effect from the expiration of the current tenancy, at the same rent of £300 per annum, the other terms and conditions to be the same as in the current lease. The respondents in their answer did not oppose the grant of a new lease, but contended that it should be for a period of three years from the date of expiry of the current lease, at a rent of £900 per annum, and that the clause restricting the user as a golf course only be deleted from the lease.
At the hearing the applicants called as a witness Mr M Basil Evans, MBE, FRICS, FAI, of the firm of Montagu Evans & Son, of London, who submitted the following rental valuation for the course, club house and buildings:
|
per annum |
per annum |
||
|
£ |
£ |
||
|
COURSE |
|||
|
87 acres at 35s per acre |
152 |
||
|
BUILDINGS |
|||
|
Club House |
|||
|
Building “A” |
|||
|
Ground Floor – 3,045 sq ft at 6d |
76 |
||
|
Verandah – 480 sq ft at 4d |
8 |
||
|
Basement boiler room |
say |
2 |
|
|
Building “B” |
|||
|
Ground floor – 1,065 sq ft at 8d |
35 |
||
|
First floor – 821 sq ft at 6d |
21 |
||
|
Attic rooms – 333 sq ft at 3d |
4 |
||
|
146 |
|||
|
OUTBUILDINGS – 2,616 sq ft at 2d |
22 |
||
|
£320 |
|||
|
Net rental value, say |
£325 |
Mr Evans stated that he had based his valuation on the rental evidence for other golf courses in Norfolk and Suffolk, and on his experience of the rental values of golf courses with which he had dealt in the rest of the country.
Under cross-examination, Mr Evans admitted that the land could have a higher value for grazing purposes, but he did not think that the club house would possess any substantial value to an agricultural tenant.
The respondents called as a witness Mr RJC Gibson, FRICS, of the firm of Francis Horner & Son, of Norwich, who gave his opinion that the land was worth £5 per acre for agricultural purposes, and that a tenant would pay this rent even if he had to carry out his own fencing and other works.
The respondents called as a witness, also, Mr OA Chapman, FRICS, of Norwich, who expressed the opinion that the property was worth a rent of £625 per annum, based on grazing rights at £4 per acre plus a rent in the region of £250 for the club house as a social centre.
It was considered, also, that the land possessed value for temporary caravan sites for periods of 28 days, under which conditions no town planning permission would be required, and evidence was given, too, as to the value of the land for the erection of bungalows.
The judge accepted the evidence given on behalf of the respondents that they had a genuine intention of seeking to put the land to a more profitable use and that they hoped to be in a position to do this in two or three years’ time.
Although evidence had been given on behalf of the landlords to the effect that a higher rent would be obtainable for user of the premises for other purposes, the judge considered that the correct interpretation of section 34 of the 1954 Act was that he should fix the rent at a reasonable rent for the premises as a golf course. He considered that the maximum rent that could be obtained from a golf club tenant in the present circumstances would be somewhere between £300 and £350. The judge accordingly made an order that the applicants should have a new lease for five years from the expiry of their existing lease, at a rental of £350 per annum, user of the premises to be restricted by the new lease to use as a golf course in the same way as before.
On the subject of costs, the judge said that the tenants had succeeded substantially on the question of rent and the landlord on the length of the term. Having given the matter a lot of thought, he felt that the appropriate order was that the landlord should pay one third of the applicants’ costs, to be taxed on Scale 4. In response to the tenants’ application, the judge also directed, pursuant to Order 47, Rule 21, of the County Court Rules, that the Registrar should have a discretion on taxation and should not be bound by the amounts appearing in the Scale. The judge also directed that attendance and qualifying fees should be allowed for the tenants’ valuer, and directed that the Registrar should have an unlimited discretion as to the amounts of those fees.
